The Sensible Body Scan Alternative 354
An anonymous reader sends in a CNN article that looks at airport security from more reasonable point of view, suggesting that looking for every last micro-gram of potentially explosive material is a waste of time, since very small quantities of explosives are unlikely to significantly damage a plane. The author also recommends incorporating parts of the Israeli method of securing airplanes — look for the bomber, not the tools. Quoting:
"Clearly everything should be done to prevent explosives getting on board an aircraft in quantities sufficient to cause structural failure and bring the plane down. But is it worth chasing lesser quantities that would result in zero or minimal damage? The enhanced pat-down that some find so offensive is designed to search for these small amounts. It often ends with a swab being taken to test for explosive residues. Technology does have a role to play, but imaging is not the solution. Operator fatigue sets in after short periods of time staring at computer images. That's why there are reports that contraband items have been smuggled through X-ray units used to scan carry-on bags. The aim should be to detect high explosive in quantities that are sufficient to cause significant damage. We don't need a machine that takes pictures of the human body. It makes more sense to develop a detector that clearly discriminates between high explosives and human tissue or water."
Re:Not profitable enough (Score:4, Interesting)
It's more than just the profit motive here, too. We can't racially profile in the US because thats racism, and that's not allowed. Additionally, we check for tiny quantities of explosives because where there's smoke, there's fire. That's how this works. It's virtually impossible to conceal explosives inside something without getting at least traces of dust on the outside, and so far that theory has actually managed to catch the few people who have been caught.
Whoever wrote this is an idiot. They're on the right side of the debate, but their maddeningly short-sighted arguments are damaging their position.
Grandma Mable gets scanned because the TSA isn't racist. My PS3 gets scanned because it'd be a great place to hide a bomb.
If they want a good argument, look on here a few days ago when someone argued that the security checks cost more lives than they save due to displaced travelers being pushed off airplanes and onto the roads. That's a solid viewpoint.
Re:Not profitable enough (Score:4, Interesting)
Grandma Mable gets scanned because the TSA isn't racist
Grandma Mable gets probed and pulled aside for a "random bag check" because people like you are idiots and too damn stupid to understand the idea of focusing resources where they will do the most good.
The guy below says he is "not comfortable" with the government keeping "tabs" on citizens. I guess he's never applied for any job that required a real background check, where agents will actually go and interview friends, neighbors, past employers, etc. And I'm sure you and he both don't understand the level of infiltration and front-organization setups that go on in the incestuous relationship between US mosques, terrorist front groups (CAIR was founded by two Hamas members, "Islamic Society of North America" is a Muslim Brotherhood organization, half the "charities" in Dearbornistan MI are Hezbollah front groups, and so on).
Political correctness gone amok is getting to be more of a danger to us than the pedoprophet's followers are!
Re:Not profitable enough (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, all this talk of profiling, scanning, and the rest of the controversial methods makes me wonder: Why aren't we using sniffer dogs as our primary defence against bombs?
Dogs, especially those bred for it, can be trained to sniff out explosives. The article makes it clear there's a minimum threshold for a bomb big enough to structurally damage an airplane, presumably the dogs can reliably find something at or below that threshold.
So far as I know, nobody finds the dogs offensive or controversial. The scans and pat-downs are borderline sexual assault, profiling is either invasion of privacy or racism depending on what's being profiled (i.e. personal history or race). Getting sniffed by a dog doesn't have those problems.
Now, this won't help find guns. But a metal detector is adequate for those. Knives are a minimal problem, considering that most of them will also set off a metal detector, and irrespective of that, it's been pointed out there are no shortage of sharp objects already on the plane. And the only real use of a gun or knife on an airplane is hijacking it, something that the reinforced cockpit doors and paranoid post 9/11 passengers will prevent.
Airport security using luggage x-rays, passenger metal detectors and a few agents with trained dogs should be sufficient against all threats.
Re:Not profitable enough (Score:4, Interesting)
Israel is about the size of New Jersey. Israel has something on the order of 30 airports and only one major International airport. The US has - how many?
Israeli security scans passenger lists and pulls out very personal information to quiz you with. You're going where? With whom? How many Americans will think that that that is OK?
They will disassemble anything to bare metal if they feel the need. You want your iPhone to look like something out of iFixit? Again, this sort of thing would not be tolerated. The training required for this type of screening is orders of magnitude beyond that needed for a scanner monkey.
It doesn't scale!
Re:Not profitable enough (Score:5, Interesting)
Solution: Don't like the dogs? Walk through the scanner and get some creepy TSA guy to fondle your junk.
Speaking of which, where's the Muslim outrage at these scanners seeing through the burka (etc). I thought women weren't supposed to reveal their figures to anyone outside of their home?
And lastly, isn't there some kind of exception in these Abrahamic holy texts specifically for working dogs? AFAIK dogs have been used for farming and herding all over the world by all religions and cultures. In fact, I recently saw a documentary (on dogs) that claimed it was the advent of the working dog that ushered in the age of agriculture. Essentially, all of human civilization owes its origins to the relationship between man and dog. Surely these religions could make exceptions to bomb-dogs (as working dogs) just as they would for a herding dog or assistance dog.
Re:Not profitable enough (Score:4, Interesting)
It's especially ineffective against the Islamist extremists that are apparently more dangerous than anybody else for the simple reason that Islam is very diverse. Consequently it's not that tough to find people of any racial or ethnic background to recruit. The bigger issue is finding ones that are desperate and angry enough to go though with it.
Re:Who have they ever caught? (Score:3, Interesting)
So in light of the fact that there is no documented evidence showing that TSA has prevented any terrorist activity since 9/11 (or at the very least, that you neglected to cite any evidence showing that), and in light of the fact at least two other terrorists slipped by TSA and were caught by the passengers on the affected airplanes, your claim that TSA's methods have worked is dubious at best, and a flat-out lie at worst.
simple alternative (Score:4, Interesting)
Dogs. Put a bomb-sniffing dog at each security checkpoint. When the dog alerts to a substance, stop the line and use pat-down procedures (performed in private) on the individual(s) who caused the alert. This is cheaper and much, much more reliable than any scanner.
Re:Aloha airlines flight 243 (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the dirty little secret that the TSA doesn't want you to know: Bombs carried into the passenger cabin would likely be ineffective in bringing down a modern airliner.
The "underwear bomber" wouldn't have succeeded (source: http://www.nowpublic.com/world/boeing-747-exlposion-test-video-shows-underwear-bomber-failure-2589249.html [nowpublic.com] ).
In 1994, Ramzi Yousef set off a bomb on Philippine Airlines Flight 434 it failed to bring down the aircraft (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434 [wikipedia.org] ).
Is it a good idea to keep bombs off planes? Absolutely - But planes are remarkably resilient. There's a reason a 737 costs $75M. They're incredibly well engineered.
Re:Not profitable enough (Score:3, Interesting)
The population of Israel is 7 million, that of the US is 300 million. If Israel has 30 airports and one major international airport, and can do this, then the US should be able to handle roughly 1200 airports and 40 major international airports.There are 700 certificated airports in the US.
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:1, Interesting)
The comparison isn't very apt or fair. Israel has a single airport to protect, the US has something on the order of 100. Add in the fact that unless you're an Israeli Jew or part of an established, organized tour group, you can expect a 3-4 hour wait and it quickly becomes infeasible to do something similar in the US without making air travel a very painful process. There's things the Israelis do that probably should be adopted in the US, such as having the secure, bomb resistant areas for checked luggage and interviewing areas so that potential alarms don't result in the evacuation of the entire terminal. However, I don't think turning a flight into a 3-4 hour ordeal to board for anyone that isn't white and christian is going to fly in the US.
Given that we have to be at the airport from 2-4 hours early already. What is the big deal about requiring all passengers to be completely checked in, bags and all by that time. Then simply apply heuristics to the data, How many bags checked in, but not the accompanying passenger, passenger checks in with no bags and wearing the wrong clothes for the destination, people paying cash at checking for the actual ticket.. etc. Then apply the Israeli triage methodology to people who fail any of the heuristics or whose behavior does not match the situation.
Somehow, I don't think it would take any long than the current circus we are dealing with.
Re:That's because profiling (like that) fails. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Israeli system cannot work in the USA (Score:5, Interesting)
I think we all just need to accept that some people are going to be struck by lightning, some people will die from trees falling on them, some people will die of food poisoning, and some people will die in exploding planes. People will go 80mph, driving with one hand while nursing a coffee and puffing a cigarette, while passing other vehicles going in the opposite direction also going 80mph only 5 feet away and think nothing of it. We should take the stupidity/bravery that allows us to do that and use it to just get on the damn airplane with our fingers crossed.
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, you technically can do this. You just have to pick one of the small charter companies that doesn't use the terminal, or fly yourself. The unfortunate part comes when you pay the bill.
In other words, the groping and nudie pictures are just for poor people, not their wealthy and/or politically connected betters.